I don't see why, really. The infrastructures all still exist. Why would it be chaos ?

The infrastructures will still exist, yes. But what about the people operating them. You've just suggest everyone goes on strike en masse. Who is
manning hospitals, power grids, transport, working as police and so on?

Unless you mean people like them carry on working whilst the rest of us down tools, and, if that's the case, then no one will really give a
#.

A couple of days without doctors, police, firemen, public transport, a power grid, food deliveries and so on would see a breakdown of civilised
society as these things help define a modern civilised society. Yes, people got by without them before and, to an extent, the more rural a community
the more they get by without them now. However, the bulk of us live in dense urban areas now. No living off the land and sitting it out.

Ah. Yeah sure, for a few weeks things will suck. I do think, though, you'd be surprised by the amount of solidarity that would happen, once people are
"deconnected" from the grid.

That's all speculation though.

It's gonna happen, but it won't be controlled. The auto-destruction of capitalism. It's happening now. When the smoke clears, we need to remember what
got us into the mess to start with, and not do it again. That's the only alternative. Else we have to wait another century or so for the next big
crash, and I'm not sure the planet will still be a very nice place to live on if we get to that point.

Ah. Yeah sure, for a few weeks things will suck. I do think, though, you'd be surprised by the amount of solidarity that would happen, once people
are "deconnected" from the grid.

For a lot of people, those few weeks will be their last. I won't be surprised by it because every indication I've ever seen in people 'pulling
together' to get them through tragedies and disasters has always been with a backdrop of at least some semblance to society as we currently know it,
still existing. Floods, fires evacuations &c, are always done with some governmental structure in the background. When that is removed, it's a free
for all of looting, rapes, murders and mob rule. The denser the population the more likely this will happen. People can be disconnected from
the grid but only with smaller, sparser populations. Try that in dense urban environments with no real open ground for fires, foraging and other
'prepper' safety nets and it's a nightmare scenario. All the preppers on here will tell you in such an event, you're best off moving away from the
cities.

It's gonna happen, but it won't be controlled.

My point exactly, it won't be controlled or ordered or communal. At best it will break-up into smaller almost tribal communities against all the
other smaller almost tribal communities.

The auto-destruction of capitalism. It's happening now. When the smoke clears, we need to remember what got us into the mess to start with,
and not do it again.

I don't deny this, as my politics will probably overlap with yours to an extent. However, I differ on how, when and why the smoke will clear and the
human cost of it all.

Average wage here in CA is 55,000 and the rental prices are 1,500-3,000 a month for a two bedroom in the city. From everyone I know and their
wage/rental monthly is 1800.00 month average income and 1340 a month in rent for two bedrooms average.

How do people live? 2 incomes and week to week. We borrow from each other, we beg each other, and we try to make ends meet.

So Marx bitched about it and now anyone else that does is a bitch. Solutions that came out of the Marx schools were not great its true. But its not
anarchy to look for ways to change the nature of the relationship.

In fairness I don’t think you actually understand what I am saying; the post I was replying to what very much a Marxist argument with an argument
about clashes arising from social stratification. The call for anarchy is a common theme in Marxism ideology calling for the rise of the proletariat
through revolution which would by its nature be an anarchist movement.

Yes but Marx wasnt the first to notice the problems that are inherent with social stratification. Whatever the Marxian fix would be, one big idea to
help take care of some of these problems was government getting into the game and liberals taking up the banner. Problems that arise from social
stratification should have the full attention of the capitalists as it can be argued that such is their stepchild. Instead they gave the ground to the
libs and the reds. The government then started taking on debt to help out with these stratification problems.

What it all really looks like is a grand partnership between captial and government with the new opiate being government wardship and the mind candy
it passes out at the local university.

The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building
it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.

Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You
can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did
the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling
over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime
without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.

You cant trace the the loss of state sovereignty to a large degree right back to the banks......over time... and the growth of the federal government.

Well Marx and his often forgotten contemporary Fredrich Engels where the ones who first pioneered the ideology of Marxism (never “Marxan”) and the
problems that arose from social class conflict that Capitalism creates. Others have since been influenced by this ideology to create their own
versions or additions to the philosophy such as Leninism. What you have said about the “Marxism Fix” was to get Liberals to back up government is
totally wrong; Liberalism and Marxism are at ideologically different however both ultimately aim to create a society in which there is no need for
government, John Locke and Karl Marx had very different ideas about how to achieve this.

You then move on to capitalism saying that capitalism is giving grounds to the liberals and the reds (I assume you mean communists) is again an
ideological paradox. Liberals, in the classical sense proposed by John Locke on which the American Constitution is based advocates a free market,
that is to say capitalism however Communism does not advocate ownership of anything (even by government) and as such is at ideological odds with
Capitalism. You speak about Capitalism as an institution rather than an ideology as if the ideology can do something to fix the Marxist critique and
problems of social stratification. It simply cannot as an ideology Capitalism creates economic social stratification and to some extent relies on it.

Your post is actually very confusing with no clear understanding of basic political ideological philosophy as such you have made multiple errors. Your
post I found very difficult to understand as a result so if my response does not address the point you were making I apologise.

Well Marx and his often forgotten contemporary Fredrich Engels where the ones who first pioneered the ideology of Marxism (never “Marxan”) and the
problems that arose from social class conflict that Capitalism creates. Others have since been influenced by this ideology to create their own
versions or additions to the philosophy such as Leninism. What you have said about the “Marxism Fix” was to get Liberals to back up government is
totally wrong; Liberalism and Marxism are at ideologically different however both ultimately aim to create a society in which there is no need for
government, John Locke and Karl Marx had very different ideas about how to achieve this.

To be fair, he didn't actually say this. He actually offered something that he clearly stated wasn't the "Marxist fix".

Whatever the Marxian fix would be, one big idea to help take care of some of these problems was government getting into the game and
liberals taking up the banner.

The key word here is 'whatever'.

You then move on to capitalism saying that capitalism is giving grounds to the liberals and the reds (I assume you mean communists) is again an
ideological paradox. Liberals, in the classical sense proposed by John Locke on which the American Constitution is based advocates a free market,
that is to say capitalism however Communism does not advocate ownership of anything (even by government) and as such is at ideological odds with
Capitalism. You speak about Capitalism as an institution rather than an ideology as if the ideology can do something to fix the Marxist critique and
problems of social stratification. It simply cannot as an ideology Capitalism creates economic social stratification and to some extent relies on it.

Talk of liberals is always confusing on international sites as they mean different things in different places and depend on whether the emphasis is on
economics or social issues.

I did say at the end of that post that I did find it difficult to understand because of the errors and how it had been written. So If I have
misunderstood what the poster was trying to say I am sorry and would ask that he/she clarifies the statement.

Also I do know that “liberal” means different things on either side of the pond but if I talk about classical liberalism as in John Locke’s
philosophy then I am talking about liberalism. I know that Americans like to differentiate between “Liberalism”(and have a different
interpretation of it) and “Libertarianism”, but this thread is about the UK and I am talking about classical liberalism.

I did say at the end of that post that I did find it difficult to understand because of the errors and how it had been written. So If I have
misunderstood what the poster was trying to say I am sorry and would ask that he/she clarifies the statement.

Also I do know that “liberal” means different things on either side of the pond but if I talk about classical liberalism as in John Locke’s
philosophy then I am talking about liberalism. I know that Americans like to differentiate between “Liberalism”(and have a different
interpretation of it) and “Libertarianism”, but this thread is about the UK and I am talking about classical liberalism.

Yes, you're defining how you're using the term. But to be fair, you've got non-UK posters replying to the thread, including Logarock, who aren't
stating how they understand liberalism and whether they're using it as a catch-all term or not.

I agree. Change the game. Reseat/reinhabit the Republic the founders gave us. When you get those banknotes, not backed by anything, for selling your
labor, all your getting is debt script. (Bankruptcy United States 1933) They're just a "promise to pay" at some future future date. Definitely not
a fair trade. I keep hearing people say that the US might go broke. If United States was already operating in receivership, 1933 how can it possibly
go bankrupt again? Who are the trustees of the 1933 bankruptcy? They're not doing too good a job, are they?

Dude, even if we were american, which we're not, how does reinstating the Republic equate with "changing the game ?" If your republic could'nt
stand once, why should it stand this time ? What magical tweak will make it work ? I don't understand why you are advocating that a return to the
past is change, and that a return to a system that has demonstrated it's inability to stand up to the power of $$$, is somehow progress.

I mean you understand that the past is a build-up to the present, right ?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

edit on 29-11-2012 by Ismail because: (no reason given)

The Republic didn't have a "hard time standing". It was VACATED.
Whever you are from: Do you have a "Central Bank"? Is your "country" listed as a corporation? Has it filed for bankruptcy? The US did in 1933.

Your post is actually very confusing with no clear understanding of basic political ideological philosophy as such you have made multiple errors. Your
post I found very difficult to understand as a result so if my response does not address the point you were making I apologise.

Well youre talking about the classical liberal vs the new american idea of the term. John Locke..is not seen as a liberal anymore in this country. The
old libs, are now called, here anyway, conservative. The liberal modern in this country these days is a hybrid of new age mish mash of marx, lenin and
you name it. Thats why we are having problems understanding each other. In fact i have a book on classical brit conservative thought and some others
along those lines and they require putting on another set of glasses to read. The same terms are used but the meanings are not the same.

The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building
it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.

Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You
can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did
the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling
over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime
without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.

You cant trace the the loss of state sovereignty to a large degree right back to the banks......over time... and the growth of the federal government.

In the US----The States are just sub- corporations. Goes all the way down to the local level. That's why our local police get us for statutes, which
are just corporation policy, not law. But, yes, it does create a good revenue stream, which eventually ends up at the central bank. And the people
here in the US seem to have no qualms about supporting this corporate system.

I did say at the end of that post that I did find it difficult to understand because of the errors and how it had been written. So If I have
misunderstood what the poster was trying to say I am sorry and would ask that he/she clarifies the statement.

Also I do know that “liberal” means different things on either side of the pond but if I talk about classical liberalism as in John Locke’s
philosophy then I am talking about liberalism. I know that Americans like to differentiate between “Liberalism”(and have a different
interpretation of it) and “Libertarianism”, but this thread is about the UK and I am talking about classical liberalism.

Yes, you're defining how you're using the term. But to be fair, you've got non-UK posters replying to the thread, including Logarock, who aren't
stating how they understand liberalism and whether they're using it as a catch-all term or not.

Yea sorry there guys. It would require an interpreter for me anyway. Dont have the foundation to understand well enough. Let me just say that our
founders and the early american thinking is here only liberal anymore in the context of its day. American liberals modern are at great odds with
classical american liberal thinking and its influences.

On the topic however, James Madison, who may have embodied the greatest grasp on liberal thinking coming out of Europe in his day, early on, even
before he became president, showed a keen understanding of how economic stratification would become a problem for our young republic. He warned
against national monopolies as harmfull. He would be laughed out of a room full of moden american "economic conservatives" and yet not embraced by
modern liberals because he didnt want to eat the rich or keep the means of production in the hands of "the people" as it were.

The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building
it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.

Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You
can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did
the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling
over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime
without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.

You cant trace the the loss of state sovereignty to a large degree right back to the banks......over time... and the growth of the federal government.

In the US----The States are just sub- corporations. Goes all the way down to the local level. That's why our local police get us for statutes, which
are just corporation policy, not law. But, yes, it does create a good revenue stream, which eventually ends up at the central bank. And the people
here in the US seem to have no qualms about supporting this corporate system.

Thats because they have been led to understand that what they see is the "american dream" come to maturity.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.